Spook Erection Ltd v British Railways Board
Spook Erection Ltd v British Railways Board
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8821) 28 May 1988, 73-74(2) .
CA 29 February 1988. An appeal by tenants from a decision refusing an application for a new tenancy , the landlords (B) having opposed the application under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) . B wished to redevelop the site, as a supermarket and had proposed to sell the site outright to supermarket operators, but the tenants were not willing to quit. The issue was whether B had established the necessary intention required by para (f). B decided to enter into a building agreement with the supermarket operators which provided for a 99-year lease to be granted on completion of the buildings. The tenants raised two points of objection: 1) the present transaction was tantamount to an outright disposal; 2) B`s intention at the date of service of the notice opposing the grant of a new tenancy was different from that held to be established at the date of the hearing. Both objections failed. Held that there was abundant material on which the judge was entitled to hold that the ground of
REDEVELOPMENT
CA 29 February 1988. An appeal by tenants from a decision refusing an application for a new tenancy , the landlords (B) having opposed the application under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) . B wished to redevelop the site, as a supermarket and had proposed to sell the site outright to supermarket operators, but the tenants were not willing to quit. The issue was whether B had established the necessary intention required by para (f). B decided to enter into a building agreement with the supermarket operators which provided for a 99-year lease to be granted on completion of the buildings. The tenants raised two points of objection: 1) the present transaction was tantamount to an outright disposal; 2) B`s intention at the date of service of the notice opposing the grant of a new tenancy was different from that held to be established at the date of the hearing. Both objections failed. Held that there was abundant material on which the judge was entitled to hold that the ground of
REDEVELOPMENT